When somebody is shooting at you, there
is no doubt in your mind that you're life is at risk so you
take cover - and hopefully, you have the means to shoot
back. In a "War in the Context of Everything Else" (WICEE)
war, the enemy can come at you from all directions, in ways
limited only by the imagination of the enemy and because of
that, you don't know who they are or how they are coming and
the war is well underway before you even realize there is
one - so fighting back requires that you meet the enemy on
the battlefield of the mind before you can formulate a
response strategy.

The first move is to do a forensic analysis of all
previous anomalous events that have the potential to have
been an unrecognized attack. Where have they hit you
that you might have attributed to something else? When
did it start? Who is enabling them? Who
are the active participants on the inside? What
are the elements of the WICEE? Can we discern a strategic plan? I say, "Yes We Can!"
(sorry couldn't resist).

At this point,
there is no doubt that the economy is collapsing and despite
what the propaganda whores of the media tell you, the
collapse was absolutely predictable. I'm not an expert
in economics. My sole claim to fame in that arena was
that I did a paper on the American Post-Industrial Economy
for a class I took in the early 90's. Whoopidity-Doo.
But it did make me think about the structure of the economy
- the distribution of knowledge jobs relative to the number
of blue collar jobs. The conclusion of my paper was
that we should be very concerned about the export of those
blue collar jobs and that it should stop because the
majority of the people who held those jobs didn't have the
"tools" for the Information Economy, nor did they
have the time in life to make the adjustment. And in
the long run, there is a significant percentage of the
population who can never participate in the Information
Economy. So
around 2001 when I found out about the export of knowledge
jobs to foreign countries, I knew our economy would collapse
within 10 to 15 years.

"Be extremely
subtle, even to the point of formlessness.
Be extremely mysterious,
even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you
can be the director of
the opponent's fate."

The reason for
that time frame was that it took about 40 years to export
manufacturing because of the time and expense of building production
facilities offshore. But knowledge jobs are easy to
export - hardly any expense at all with astounding
increases in profits that would be accrued through decreased labor costs.
Simply knowing that corporate profits were the driving force
- and that blue collar jobs were already mostly gone, and
using simple logic - 'if you've already exported most of
your blue collar jobs, and your economy is supported by
knowledge jobs and you start exporting those knowledge jobs,
you're in DEEP SH*T! That was when I began my
forensic analysis to find out what was behind the insanity
of torpedoing the American economy.

Supply Side Economics = Corporatism

The problem is
Supply-Side economics which as it turns out is just another
name for Corporatism. This theory was promoted by the white
collar corporate crime syndicate in New York and Washington DC.
It was sold to the American people with the propaganda
message that because corporations employ people, economic
policy should be focused to facilitate corporations in
making even more money so that they would hire even more
employees.

You've
probably heard this a hundred times, "a poor man doesn't
hire another poor man". That much is true.
But it is also true, that "a rich man will hire and exploit
the cheapest labor he can find - up to and including slave
labor". And it was the pursuit of the cheapest labor in
the world that is causing the 'Great Unwinding' of our
economic system and potentially the collapse of our nation.

xxx

Fascism should rightly
be called Corporatism as it is a merger of state and
corporate power ~ Benito
Mussolini

The Fraud of
"Free Trade"

On March 14,
Patrick Mulloy of the
U.S.-China Economic
& Security Commission was on C-Span to talk about a
report they just produced about the trade deficit with
China.Mr. Mulloy was a Congressional
Staffer for the Senate banking committee in 1980's when the decisions were being made on
U.S. economic policy.His segment
was about 30 minutes long but if time is a constraint, to
the right, just
listen to an audio recording of the last caller.

The
following is a snippet from the call:

Mulloy: …They call these ‘free trade
agreements’…We concluded that this [NAFTA] is
more of an investment agreement. What this is
doing is providing the opportunity for people to
invest in the other country and then to be able to
ship their goods back into the United States at a
lower tariff than they would have had… When we
are talking about these ‘free trade’ agreements a
big part of it is an investment - for the company
to invest and then ship back.

"Investing
in the Other Country and Shipping Back In"

There is no
"on-off" switch with economic policy. It takes time
for corporations to shift their business models when the law
changes. In the case of NAFTA, clearly, the incentives
were for corporations to move their production to Mexico
where the labor was cheap and there was no penalty for doing
it because they could ship their goods back into the United
States for "free". So "Free Trade" was about bigger
corporate profits at the expense of the American economy and
the American workers who lost jobs as corporations moved
their production facilities to Mexico.

Maquiladoras clearly have prospered under these
incentives. In 1975, they employed 67,214
workers in 454 plants producing $1 billion worth
of goods. By 1996, there were 754,858 employees in
2,411 plants with a total production of $35
billion. Investment is heavily dominated by U.S.
businesses, but Asian and European interest is
growing. Of the total registered maquiladoras
in 1995,43% were wholly owned by Mexican
interests, 38% by U.S. parties, and 14% by
Mexican-U.S. partnerships. Most of the
Mexican-owned plants, however, were under contract
with U.S. firms. Approximately 2% came under
Japanese ownership and 3% were owned by other
foreign interests.5

This is
where the propaganda whores of the media come in with their
campaigns of "Free Trade" is good! It means economic
prosperity for all! Transportation jobs were
created along the border with Mexico, but the North Eastern
industrial states and the textile states hemorrhaged jobs -
destroying lives and local economies. The mitigation
for the loss of a job was "Trade Adjustment Assistance" -
retraining for a different job.

Here is
another excerpt from the report:

Some call for slowing economic integration,
including rethinking the U.S. commitment to NAFTA
(and free trade in general) to alleviate the
adjustment problem. Others believe that those
low-skilled workers facing employment problems
will not find lasting relief based on any type of
barriers to international economic relations.
Studies have found that wage stagnation and job
losses in this group are, for the most part, not
the result of trade, but as noted bythe
International Monetary Fund, represent a broader
trend "driven principally by advances in
technology that favor skilled labor."17
From this perspective, the solution is to be found
in domestic rather than trade policy. The
oft-repeated policy suggestions include supporting
trade adjustment, first on a short-term basis by
helping marginalized members of society to weather
economic transition (the social safety net issue)
and second, on a more permanent basis, by helping
them learn to function in an increasingly
competitive global economy (the education and
training issue). This emphasis encourages
response to, rather than confrontation with,
global trends.

That
paragraph highlights the fraud of "free trade".
Corporations moved down to Mexico to lower their costs of
production (cheap labor) but Americans are told that the
reason they lost their job was because of technological
advances and that they will have to become more highly
skilled. The American people were told that in the
global economy, there are winners and losers - and if you
are a loser, just suck it up.

The truth
is that every time a job is exported from the United States,
we are all losers because those losses ripple through the
entire economy.
The net effect on the U.S. economy was a loss of middle
class jobs, the losses to the tax base - federal, state and
local, increased social costs for re-training,
unemployment insurance, food stamps, welfare, etc.
Taxes on everybody who still had a job go up to cover the
loss of taxes collected from the people who lost their jobs.

Exporting Knowledge Jobs - Importing Cheap Labor

In 1995,
when the U.S. signed the agreement for the Uruguay Round of
trade agreements creating the World Trade Organization, the
agreement included a provision to allow "trade in services"
which was a global arrangement to allow the same kind of
"investment in the other country" for the Knowledge
Industries - exporting the high dollar knowledge jobs - and
importing foreign cheap labor - which puts American citizens
out of work on both sides of the export/import equation.

From the
first "Free Trade" agreement that was signed to benefit
corporations at the expense of our nation as a whole, all economic policy decisions since that
time have exacerbated the problems rather than fixing them.
National policies across the board have been to try and
mitigate national losses to protect corporate profits.
But the corporate profits are offshore - earned in foreign
countries subject to taxation only upon repatriation which
is voluntary. With corporate profits as the first
priority of economic and social policy, it effectively turns U.S. policy on it's head. Those agreements exported American wealth and
imported Third World Poverty. 'Free Trade' was the
first identifiable front in the WICEE war on the American people.

Global Corporatism

The term "globalization" is
synonymous with corporatization - on a global scale.
Another way of saying it is that globalization is global
corporatism.

Production and capital stayed
within the United States. It provided a ladder upward for
people to progress economically and it provided a rising
standard of living.

Tax obligations to support the infrastructure of the United
States was shared more equally because everybody
contributed.

The commercial market for
labor provided the incomes necessary for a well functioning
economy providing jobs at the low end and upward mobility
for those who had the ambition to strive for it.

This is a worldwide
redistribution of wealth from the United States to the world
with the benefits accruing only to the banksters and the
multinational corporations as they drain our economy of its
wealth.

The U.S. economy will never
recover under these conditions. The standard of living for
the American people will drop to third world levels and our
infrastructure will crumble from lack of capital from a
solid foundation (savings) to rebuild it.

Illusions and Delusions

A WICCE war
would not be possible without a media "arrangement" between
corporate and government power centers. It's difficult
to know when this really started because American media has
always been corporate sponsored but thanks to an article
titled "The
Control of the American News Media" by James Kelso, we
know the following:

A covert policy, formulated by
Ronald Reagan in conjunction with the CIA, was
termed “perception management” and was formalized
on January 14, 1983 when President Reagan signed
the National Security Decision Directive No. 77.
The Reagan White House and the CIA felt that a
resurrection of anti-war activism in the United
States as had occurred during the prolonged and
futile Vietnamese war could curtail or halt the
Reagan/CIA policy of “aggressive containment,”
specifically in Central America.

This project was also called
‘public diplomacy’ and while it was ostensibly
created to develop American public support for
Reagan’s foreign policy, it also was constructed
to effect control over the opinions of the
American public through control of the American
media, both TV and press reportage.

Under the “perception
management/public diplomacy” program, the CIA was
instructed to take a number of steps to bring the
American public’s perceptions into line with an
official U.S. governmental policy.

The
justification given for the policy was due to retrospective
analysis of social conditions during the Viet Nam era but,
with the benefit of hindsight and all that has transpired
since 1983, one has to consider that the policy might
actually have been enacted for prospective purposes.
With those purposes being to keep international agreements
out of the News, to divert the public's attention when
important world events are occurring, to frame public
perception towards the 'solutions' for the Hegelian
Dialectics played out to serve the 'Corperament'
policies. [Note: if there is a word for 'corporate
government' I don't know it so from here on out, when I say
government, I mean the corporatist government - "Corperament"
and not the American government.]

Consolidation of Political Power

In June of
1982,
Ronald Reagan gave a stunning speech to the British
Parliament in which he said, "...a
moment of kinship and homecoming in these hallowed
halls". One might be tempted to
think that he was just being polite, but one finds the true
meaning of words spoken in the past by tracing the actions
that followed the words. Do a little research to see
how many "American" leaders have been knighted for their
"service to the queen". SLAVERING DOGS!

The
following is a page copied from the history of the National
Endowment for Democracy published in 'Commonsense' in
December of 1983 (Adobe Page 7):

From
Commonsense, (Adobe Page 8),

"Eighteen months after President Reagan's historic
1982 speech to the British Parliament, history of
another sort was made. Responding to his
proposal for an American effort to assist
democratic institution building abroad, Congress
voted to authorize the National Endowment for
Democracy which will assist private efforts by
labor, business, and the two political parties to
help others "foster the infrastructure of
democracy".

That means
that December of 1983 was the year that political power in
the United States was consolidated in the NED soviet
("soviet" meaning council). The following is from an
article in Commonsense titled, "The Democracy Program: A Strong Foundation"
written by William Brock. At the time it was written,
Brock was the United State Trade Representative, former
Chairman of the Republican National Committee and former
senator from Tennessee.

Beginning
Adobe page 11:

Over
the last several decades, requests from the Third World and
other countries asking the U.S. for assistance in developing
democratic institutions have steadily increased. The
Republican and Democratic Parties, the business community,
the labor movement--all have received numerous requests.
But while the AFL-CIO and business groups have been able to
offer aid, for the most part, our international counterparts
have not been able to gain the support they need from the
U.S.

A Program for
Democracy

Many
political, business, labor, academic, and other leaders have
long been aware of the need for a long-range bipartisan
approach to democratic institution-building. Congressman
Dante Fascell (D-Fla.), for example, has been a staunch
advocate of creating a permanent legislative mechanism that
would encourage the American private sector to assist
counterpart groups abroad and since the 1960s he has been
pushing for the establishment of institutions to support
such efforts.

During my chairmanship at the Republican National Committee,
I became deeply convinced of the need for increased
international activity by both political parties and by
other private sector groups. Early in 1979, I was
privileged to meet with then candidate Margaret Thatcher and
a number of her colleagues. As a result of those meetings,
I became persuaded that the American Republican and the
British Conservative parties had much to learn from each
other and much to contribute to newly created parties in
other countries, particularly in the Third World.

Charles T. Manatt, chairman of the Democratic National
Committee and then chairman of the DNC’s Finance Council,
enjoyed similar experiences and also became a supporter of
the idea. Together with other leading party officials,
Chuck Manatt and I created the American Political Foundation
as a bipartisan vehicle to forge a broader role for
political parties abroad. At the same time, Michael A.
Samuels, now vice president of the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce’s international division, and William A. Douglas, a
consultant to the AFL-CIO’s American Institute for Free
Labor Development, provided a conceptual foundation for
supporting democracy internationally in a 1981 Washington
Quarterly article. They concluded that:

U.S. national
interests require a program for providing
political aid to strengthen democratic pluralism
in other countries. Since the advent of the Cold
War, the United States has worked abroad
politically, mainly covertly, with direct
government action and secret financing of private
student, cultural, and labor groups. The covert
approach has proven inadequate. Experience in the
fields of education, labor and cooperatives shows
that overt government financing of U.S. private
groups working in politics abroad would be more
effective than the covert approach has been.

Samuels and Douglas specifically called for creation of a
new private sector institution that could receive government
funds that would remain independent of any administration.
Such an effort, they felt, should include input from
political parties, business, labor, academic, and other
groups.

By
early 1982, these ideas burgeoned into a series of meetings
sponsored by Mike Samuels and myself and included
representatives of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the
Republican and Democratic Parties, the Administration, the
AFL-CIO, and academia. Out of these gatherings came the
decision to launch a study to see if a permanent mechanism
could be designed to encourage private sector groups to
become involved in strengthening democratic institutions and
values on an international level. A formal proposal was
then made to President Reagan, through the American
Political Foundation, to create a study called the Democracy
Program. The President heartily endorsed the idea and
announced creation of the study during his historic speech
to the British Parliament on June 8, 1982.

National Endowment for Democracy

Upon examination of the
structure of NED, it clearly represents the consolidation of
political power and it would be the policy coordinator and
funnel for the shadow government designed to mask the true
structure which is by definition, totalitarian.

"In its infancy, IRI focused
on planting the seeds of democracy in Latin America. Since
the end of the Cold War, IRI has broadened its reach to
support democracy and freedom around the globe. IRI has
conducted programs in more than 100 countries and is
currently active in more than 70 countries.

"NDI
works with democrats in every region of the world to build
political and civic organizations, safeguard elections, and
to promote citizen participation, openness and
accountability in government."

“You need something that is
transparent, something that is open, something that is
nongovernmental,” Gershman continued, supporting the
McMillan-Scott proposal, “so that you can continue to
operate without being constrained by the diplomatic concerns
and priorities of the European Union.”

"To tackle the enormous
challenges workers face in the global economy, the
American Federation
of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)
— the national federation that represents millions
of working women and men in the United States — launched the
American Center for International Labor Solidarity in 1997."

And NED has
been very busy around the world - spreading "democracy"
and fomenting revolution. The following is an excerpt
from a speech given by
George Bush on June 6, 2005:

"We come
together at a great moment in history, when
freedom is on the march around our world. In the
last year-and-a-half -- think about this -- we've
witnessed a Rose Revolution in Georgia, an Orange
Revolution in Ukraine, a Purple Revolution in
Iraq, a Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, a Cedar
Revolution in Lebanon -- and these are just the
beginnings. Across Central Asia, hope is stirring
at the prospect of change -- and change will come.
Across the broader Middle East, we are seeing the
rise of a new generation whose hearts burn for
freedom -- and they will have it."

Bratislava, Slovakia – As the promotion of
democracy and human rights assumes an increasingly
important role in the United States and the
European Union (EU), democracy promotion is
experiencing a backlash in many countries around
the world, confronting deliberate measures by
regimes to frustrate freedom’s progress and
suppress human rights.

Note:
Why would we be spreading "democracy" when we have a
Republic? At least we're supposed to have a
Republic.

Shadow Government

Proving
there is a shadow government even with the evidence of
consolidation of political power would be difficult were it
not for a providential coincidence. I was listening to
Alex Jones yesterday and his guest Jim Marrs. Mr.
Marrs mentioned a speech given by Barack Obama's National
Security Advisor, retired General Jim Jones. In the
speech which is posted on the Council on Foreign Relations
website, Jones says the following:

U.S.
National Security Adviser Jones gave these remarks
at the 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy
at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof on February 8, 2009.

"Thank
you for that wonderful tribute to Henry Kissinger
yesterday. Congratulations. As the most recent
National Security Advisor of the United States,
I take my
daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down
through Generaal Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger,
who is also here. We have a chain of command in
the National Security Council that exists today.

I think my role
today is a little bit different than you might
expect. Following the speech of the Vice President
and the presence of our distinguished members from
the U.S. House of Representatives, I thought that
I would spend my time talking to you about how
taking the President’s guidance and the Vice
President’s comments yesterday, I would spend a
few moments trying to discuss how the U.S.
National Security Council intends to reorganize
itself in order to be supportive. For decades,
this conference in Munich has provided a truly
exceptional forum for the kind of open dialogue
and candid discussions that can only take place
among close friends and allies. The Vice
President’s attendance and his speech yesterday
should send I think a very strong and sincere
signal about the seriousness of our purpose when
it comes to listening, engaging and building
stronger partnerships with all of our friends and
allies because the President feels that the
transatlantic alliance is a cornerstone to our
collective security.

The purpose of
the conference was found in a press release on the White
House website:

Vice President Joe Biden to Represent United States at Annual Munich Security Conference

The Vice President will travel to Germany at the end of next week to represent the United States and address the 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy, also known as Wehrkunde. General James L. Jones, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, will also attend the conference. Wehrkunde is an annual gathering of government officials, foreign and defense policy experts and journalists to discuss Trans-Atlantic security issues.

Past speakers and participants at the annual Munich Security Conference have included: Vladimir Putin, when he was President of Russia; the Secretary General of the United Nations; King Abdullah II of Jordan; Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. Additional details about the Vice President’s trip will be announced at a later date.

Consolidation of Military Power

George H. W. Bushbegan
the consolidation of the military power structure when
he dissolved the Strategic Air Command (SAC) and stood
up STRATCOM. STRATCOM’s job was to consolidate the
leadership in the military. He severely cut the military
budget to justify the consolidation of leadership - the
consolidation of power within the military even though it
was blamed on Clinton.

"In 1992, Offutt
Air Base faced monumental changes when the easing
of world tensions allowed the United States to
reorganize its Air Force. After 46 years, SAC was
deactivated on June 1, 1992, and a new, unified
command, STRATCOM was activated. The beginning of
STRATCOM coincided with the change from a world
with two super-powers facing each other to a world
with one super-power and many other powerful
nations and coalitions of power."

And he put all U.S. nuclear
weapons in the hands of one person:

1995 - General Butler was the chief architect
with dissolving SAC and the start-up of the United
States Strategic Command (STRATCOM). He worked
very closely with General Colin Powell, Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the roles and
missions and structure of STRATCOM. The only
question was when would the change take place.
STRATCOM took over the same mission of SAC, but
with one twist.
STRATCOM has authority over all nuclear weapons.[2]

"The central purpose of the Department of Defense
is to conduct effective military operations in
pursuit of America's National Security Strategy.
The central message for DoD from the Commission on
Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces is, in the
21st century, every DoD element must focus on
supporting the operations of the unified
commanders in chief. Everything else DoD does,
from furnishing health care to developing new
weapons, should support that effort. The
recommendations made throughout our report seek to
concentrate all of DoD's activities toward that
end.

Military operations are performed by geographic
and functional CinCs under the authority and
direction of the president and the secretary of
defense. To be successful, the CinCs must mold
effective unified forces from the diverse array of
capabilities provided to them by other
organizations. This means that the CinCs must have
a role in helping determine the capabilities that
will be available; it also requires the close
cooperation of the military departments and the
services, support agencies and decision-makers in
DoD. The department has strengthened its
capabilities for unified operations considerably
since passage of the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols
[Department of] Defense Reorganization Act. But
that job is not yet done; further efforts to
ensure the effectiveness of joint operations are
essential to a successful and secure future.

Our recommendations are designed to better focus
DoD's traditional military functions, management
and decision-making processes, and support
elements more directly on effective unified
military operations. In short, we must accelerate
the process of thinking differently about defense.
Military operations are planned and conducted by
joint forces under the direction of the CinCs, not
by the military services, defense agencies or
Pentagon staffs."

On September
11, 2001, the day of the worst attack on American soil,
General Ralph Eberhart was in charge of NORAD, U.S. air
defense.

"(wore) three
hats as the commander in chief of both U.S. Space
Command and the North American Aerospace Defense
Command and as Defense Department manager for
Space Transportation Systems Contingency Support,
all at Peterson. He has served as head of Space
Command since Feb. 22, 2000."

The commander of the U.S. military's space and
continental air defense assets has been chosen to
lead the nation's premier military homeland
defense organization.

Air Force
Gen. Ralph E. Eberhart has been nominated by
President Bush to command the soon-to-be
established U.S. Northern Command, Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today in a
Pentagon news briefing. The nomination requires
U.S. Senate confirmation, DoD officials noted.

Secretary Rumsfeld is responsible for directing
the actions of the Defense Department in response
to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
The war is being waged against a backdrop of major
change within the Department of Defense. The
department has developed a new defense strategy
and replaced the old model for sizing forces with
a newer approach more relevant to the 21st
century. Secretary Rumsfeld proposed and the
President approved a significant reorganization of
the worldwide command structure, known as the
Unified Command Plan, that resulted in the
establishment of the U.S. Northern Command and the
U.S. Strategic Command, the latter charged
with the responsibilities formerly held by the
Strategic and Space Commands which were
disestablished.

The before
September 11, 2001 Unified Command Plan and after September
11, 2001 Unified Command Plan maps can be seen on the
Global Security website.

And now the
military is "partnering" with law enforcement - militarizing
the police - and setting up surveillance "Fusion Centers" on
American soil to surveil American citizens as if American
citizens were the enemy.

"Patriots, Christians and concerned citizens are
increasingly in the cross hairs of the U.S.
intelligence community, and battle lines are being
quietly drawn that could soon pit our own law
enforcement and military forces against us."

Civilian Data Fusion
Center

Point, Click and
Disable Your Breaks

Same System as
Military Fusion Center

Killing as a
Video Game

Just to recap
where we are, we know that we have a "partnership" between
the institutions of political power, business, labor, and
the two political parties. We have a controlled media.
We have a crashing economy due to the deliberately
subversive and deceptive "free trade" agreements.
We've had consolidation of military power to a unified
command structure across services within a global military
with regional assignments. And we have the
militarization of our domestic police forces "partnering"
with the military in violation - in spirit if not in point
of law - of Posse Comitatus. And we have Homescam
Security "Intelligence Fusion Centers" describing concerned
American citizens as domestic terrorists.

End of Part 1
of "War in the Context of Everything Else"

- To Be
Continued -

Vicky Davis
March 21, 2009

For
my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I
am willing to know the whole truth; to know the
worst and provide for it ~ Patrick Henry

___________

1] 'War in the
Context of Everything Else' is a term I picked up from
Thomas P.M. Barnett. It's my belief that Barnett is
the Communicator of the Agenda for the people who executed
the coup d'etat on the United States - net-centric warfare.